S.P.A.R.C.

Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Author Topic: An intresting and informative read  (Read 8891 times)

mistoffolees

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1697
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: POSITION statement
« Reply #10 on: Nov 10, 2007, 09:07:17 AM »

>
>That was kinda the point I was trying to make. There is too
>much waste large portions of money intended to go to one place
>is going towards others. It is not that the system can't work,
>it can and in some situations does but not always. Your never
>going to get any social program or any other program for that
>matter to have a 100% success rate and there are always
>improvements to be made. Really on paper there is little wrong
>with the system it is in the process of trying to make it work
>that things don't get carried out as it should, mistakes are
>made, people get hurt and so do children. If they used all the
>money they wasted and pissed away to regulate the system the
>results would be better all the way around. The main problem
>with the system is human error, lazyness, and people trying to
>get one over on the system. I too hold your position of I
>"believe in social services, but believing in them and
>believing in how many of them are run are two totally
>seperate
>things."

Absolutely. I agree completely with that.

However, I do not believe that justifies scrapping the system - which is what has been proposed.

Instead, I think a couple of things should happen:

1. Wherever possible, people should be paying their child support directly. If that happened 100% of the time, there's be no need for CSE. That's clearly never going to happen, but the more often people pay directly, the less need for CSE.

2. When people CHOOSE to use CSE for whatever reason (and, yes, there are very good reasons on both sides), they need to be aware that there's a cost for doing so.

3. Of course, like any government (or private, for that matter) program, there's waste. An effort should be made to reduce the waste in ANY program. In this case, there are a number of incompetent people and efforts should be made to have them removed from CSE, for example.

The system can be improved - no doubt. That doesn't mean that it's worthless or unnecessary - as some have proposed.


Davy

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1013
  • Karma: -545
    • View Profile
RE: Two wrongs...
« Reply #11 on: Nov 10, 2007, 09:20:11 AM »
Children, parents and families MATTER.  mist doesnt.

babyfat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: POSITION statement
« Reply #12 on: Nov 10, 2007, 10:01:13 AM »
>Absolutely. I agree completely with that.
>
>However, I do not believe that justifies scrapping the system
>- which is what has been proposed.

Yes this link does propose that but that wasn't what I was getting at just that it states as reasons to scrap it and there are reasons.

>
>Instead, I think a couple of things should happen:
>
>1. Wherever possible, people should be paying their child
>support directly. If that happened 100% of the time, there's
>be no need for CSE. That's clearly never going to happen, but
>the more often people pay directly, the less need for CSE.
 
I absolutly agree with that CSE should only be used for persons who are not willing to pay, not for people who are doing the responcible thing and are compliant with court orders. However many judges out there automaticly send it to CSE with out any question as to whether or not the parent will pay and before the NCP has even defaulted on payments. Another goodie was when my husband died I got a packet from CSE to fill out because I was trying to get a medical card for my children. They actually expected me to fill it out with a death cert on file. Waste of paper and time yep! In order to get the medical card I actually had to fill it out you should of seen how I filled out "last known address" Good thing I have a sence of humor and the receiver of the paper said to me that was the funniest form he has read in a long time (seriously I put currently half his body is on the hill side at (his dad's farms address) and the other half is in the back of my steps son closet at (step sons address)

>2. When people CHOOSE to use CSE for whatever reason (and,
>yes, there are very good reasons on both sides), they need to
>be aware that there's a cost for doing so.

I also agree with this and I believe the person causing the problem should have to pay part of this fee not all something like a yearly flat rate of a reasonable ammount like say mom has the kids dad wont pay he should have to pay the yearly service fee in addition to the support however if he can prove he is paying and mom is just being a pain she should have to pay.

>3. Of course, like any government (or private, for that
>matter) program, there's waste. An effort should be made to
>reduce the waste in ANY program. In this case, there are a
>number of incompetent people and efforts should be made to
>have them removed from CSE, for example.

I 100% agree like in any job if you screw up several times you'll get fired. If you can't do the job your suppose to do find one you can.

>The system can be improved - no doubt. That doesn't mean that
>it's worthless or unnecessary - as some have proposed.

Just to clarify my position is not that I believe the system is totally worthless, I believe it is flawed, over used, and has much human error causing problems for all. Completely shut down, no, just modified on several levels and regulated better. It needs more efficency like most government programs in the social area. I guess I'm middle of the road as far as this program goes. Yes it works for some yes it hurts some. One could make the same argument about welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc etc.

Davy

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1013
  • Karma: -545
    • View Profile
RE: POSITION statement
« Reply #13 on: Nov 10, 2007, 11:42:28 AM »

>> However, I do not believe that justifies scrapping the system - which is what has been proposed.

The system can be improved - no doubt. That doesn't mean that it's worthless or unnecessary - as some have proposed. >>

I haven't seen those proposals (and don't want to) but one would think  it was a ligitimate proposal and worthy of EFFECTIVE and RATIONAL communication.   Engage the poster rather than attacking this board.
PLEASE !!!

Many, many people from all walks of life have worked hard on these issues over a long period of time and the work continues TODAY.

The evidence ... metal detectors at the court house !!!

leon clugston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: An intresting and informative read
« Reply #14 on: Nov 10, 2007, 07:39:40 PM »
some enteresting quotes in there from various reports and journals.
realy liked the question brought up by the House ways and means committee.


babyfat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: An intresting and informative read
« Reply #15 on: Nov 11, 2007, 07:20:53 AM »
I was waiting for somebody to say that
From the House ways and means committe:

"States still make a profit on their child support program. States are
free to spend the State share of collections in any manner the State
sees fit, but States must spend Federal incentive payments solely on
the CSE program or on activities approved by the Secretary of HHS
which contribute to the effectiveness or efficiency of the CSE
program."

The way this is written the "profit" from this program taht is suppose to support children can go to just about anything the state sees fit wheater it is for kids or not. Another words they can take this money and put it towards giving the governer a raise if they felt like it or putting a new roof on the state capitol building. Things that have nothing to do with kids at all. I would not have any problem with this if there was some kind of statement like "States are free to spend the State share of collections on Education or after school programs to benifit low income children" or something like that. This statement also has hidden meaning like go after any money you can, however you can just to turn a profit, and do it by any means possible (as set forth in previous paragraphs) to maximize the profit.
Something else I noticed on my boyfriends statements was that from the moment the judge said who gets child support and ordered it the order went into effect. That means if it takes them 3 months to figure out how much then he has to pay from the back date so he already starts of owing back support with interest. So the longer it takes them to "figure out" how much he owes the more interest he has to pay, the more the state makes.

MixedBag

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: 155
  • That's Me...MixedBag
    • View Profile
    • http://www.doilyboutique.com
Questions...
« Reply #16 on: Nov 11, 2007, 07:44:23 AM »
Maybe I need my EX#2 to chime in here...for a change since they still read...

Right now, I'm still working with WV DHR to get CS paid up to date and straight.

I'm confused as to where the state is getting it's money from when it seems like every dime collected by them is getting passed (or will get passed) to me.

I collected CS through Alabama for years, and whatever was with held from EX#1 was sent to me.  

However, When EX#3 paid CS through OH, I know he paid a few dollars more each month for the state to handle it -- so I would agree it exists.

I just went back over the figures in my current case that's open and from I can tell, he's not paying any kind of surcharge for the state to handle the case.

And they claim that as soon as they get the money, they send the money.  (So if it weren't for this "problem" they are having, there would be no money to hold on to right now.)

Interest....so they're making interest while they are hanging on to it.

That's the other possibility.  

With EX#1, he got paid twice a month, and I'm not sure who hung on to the money until it was sent to me shortly after the first of the month.  Whenever the money was stuck in the wrong month, it was because they showed a payment made on the 31st, and nothing for after the 1st.  So yes, it took a phone call to "manually look for it", release it, etc...  And the payment that they showed on the 31st was for the entire amount, not just half, so that makes me believe Uncle Sam didn't send two payments, only one.

With EX#2, he gets paid every two weeks, and for a minute there, I thought it was working right, I was getting part of the CS every two weeks.  Now we have other (clarification) problems (not his fault), and I'm told I will get almost half every two weeks (monthly order/bi-weekly pay period thing).

With EX#3, after he retired and it wasn't income with holding because I sent in the money order on the first each month, I guess I really have no idea how fast the money made it to mom.  She never (in over 10 years) complained, so it must have been fairly timely.  NV did not add on any fees either for processing CS.

So, when they are holding a payment even for a day, they are making interest -- is that it?

And since you're talking tons of money at a state level, you're talking significant interest?

BTW -- let's keep the discussion friendly, O.K.?


babyfat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Questions...
« Reply #17 on: Nov 11, 2007, 08:42:16 AM »
Good questions!! If you click on the origional link and then click on the link to the house ways and means section 8 it goes into a brief explination. From what I understand there is a fee $25 or something depending on the state for the service. You really have to sit down with the ex's and go through all the numbers because I'm not sure but it appears from what I read (I could be wrong and I'm sure the states vary) that not every single penney gets to the CP. You'd actually have to sit down with pay stubs and compair to see where the extra goes. Now much of it probably comes from intrest. If dad pays on the say 15th of every month and they only issue the child on the first of every month they collect intrest on that for the time they have it. Also if due to a "mistake" they happen to hold the money for what ever reason longer than they are suppose to they are collecting intrest on it for that time too. When you consider how many children get child support in a state at any given time that is a lot of money.
See I think what the states are banking on is that when CSE is in charge of the support it is because mom and dad don't communicate. Mom jsut receives a check and is happy dad just has the money taken out and grumbles about it but isn't really going to call up and say "hey did you get the whole $247.17 they took out of my check friday"
Also from what I was getting is there is 2 different approaches to the child support one if for TANF and then the people who don't qualify for that but need services any way but that just lost me so I'll go back and read it again later (sometimes if I read something 2 or 3 times it clicks better) maybe somebody else can explain better.

mistoffolees

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1697
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Questions...
« Reply #18 on: Nov 11, 2007, 10:26:01 AM »
Remember that CSE is state funded (partially reimbursed by the federal government) in most states. That means that tax dollars pay the majority of the cost of collecting CS.

The interest is insignificant if they're passing the money on quickly. On a $250 check, the interest for one day is less than $0.03 at 4%. In order to collect that $0.03, they need to have someone track the interest and account for it. If the average office person is making $15 per hour and it takes them 1 minute of work to track and account for the paperwork, it would cost them $0.25 to collect $0.03 per day. Yes, the interest on millions of checks adds up, but so does the work.

Most of CSE's budget (at least in my state) is pure taxpayer funded. That's why the latest survey says that the state recovers $4.83 in child support for every dollar of state funding.

Why do they spend that money?
First, because citizens want child support collected.
Second, because if they don't collect child support, some of those children will end up on welfare and the state will pay the full cost of supporting the kids - not 1/$4.83 of the cost.

MixedBag

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: 155
  • That's Me...MixedBag
    • View Profile
    • http://www.doilyboutique.com
RE: Questions...
« Reply #19 on: Nov 11, 2007, 12:54:51 PM »
OH most certainly had a fee and the order had it listed.

NV didn't.

AL doesn't.

I believe WV doesn't.


 

Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.